“Bitch” Vs. “Jerk”: Where We Discuss Who The Writers Screwed This Week/Season/Ever

[Reganne]

10 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean had his mother do lovely things for him and then he got to watch her burn to death on the ceiling and had to run with his baby brother in his arms. His childhood ended at 4.

Dean, as a child and teen provided Sam with some of those mothering things that he never got from Mary or  John like make his dinner be it spaghettios, mac and cheese, cereal; nursed his wounds and took him to the ER when he jumped off the roof; made sure he had his homework and books for school. No, Dean wasn't Mary but Sam did get some mothering from Dean (which Dean acknowledges in 12.22).

The happiest times either of the boys would have had.. ended when Dean was 4.  Having someone who is 4 years older than you take care of you will never be the same.... because that child themselves ... though they try their hardest doesn't have enough life experience and knowledge to know what's best.... to know how to properly raise a child.  Heck John himself was so lost he didn't even know how to take care of them.

[DittyDotDot]

38 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

IA with @catrox14 here.  Yes, Sam definitely didn't have a normal childhood, but he also did have some normal times--much more than Dean did

I don't think that's true. Sure, Sam got to be innocent of the supernatural longer than Dean did, but Dean also had four years of a normal childhood that Sam never had. So, I think it's not so much that one had more or less than the other, they just had different "normal" times. I think there just as many things Dean got to do that Sam didn't and vice versa. Their early childhoods were just different, not better or worse, IMO.

9 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

 I think it gets tossed around that Dean had normal for almost five years but it's not like he remembers infancy or toddlerhood. At best he has a few fuzzy memories. 

Sure, but early childhood is a very important development period. Dean may not remember it, but it helped shape him and it was something Sam never experienced. I don't think you can negate one experience for the other. They're just different.

Edited September 26, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

The happiest times either of the boys would have had.. ended when Dean was 4.  Having someone who is 4 years older than you take care of you will never be the same.... because that child themselves ... though they try their hardest doesn't have enough life experience and knowledge to know what's best.... to know how to properly raise a child.  Heck John himself was so lost he didn't even know how to take care of them.

I think the point here is not that Dean "properly" raised Sam, but that he gave him the unconditional love that Mary would have (and that John was unable to.)  John obviously provided food and shelter (and diapers!) while Dean gave the emotional support that a young child needs (that's why children in institutions that get impartial care but not affection usually wind up with emotional issues later in life.)  

 

1 minute ago, DittyDotDot said:

Sure, but early childhood is a very important development period. Dean may not remember it, but it helped shape him and it was something Sam never experienced. I don't think you can negate one experience for the other. They're just different.

I think I addressed this in my comment above.  Yes, they're different, but there are some things that are comparable:  the need for cuddling/affection (which Dean got from Mary and gave to Sam), and the existence of traumatic events (which Dean suffered but Sam didn't.)  

[DeeDee79]

40 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

IA with @catrox14 here.  Yes, Sam definitely didn't have a normal childhood, but he also did have some normal times--much more than Dean did, and both John and Dean had to be deliberately working to allow/create it.  

I agree with this also. There's no disputing that they both had an extremely effed up childhood but considering that Sam himself even stated that Dean sacrificed everything for him it's not too far of a leap to say that Dean did what he could to make his life as normal as he was able to.

[Reganne]

7 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

This is something people keep pointing to, as if having something good for the first four years of your life should make the rest of your life better.  Honestly, how much do you remember of your first four years?  Most of Dean's childhood memories (or at least the flashbacks) are only of the last 6 months or so before Mary died, when Dean was old enough to understand and make sense of things.  And I know (yes, from personal experience) that traumatic events in childhood tend to stick with you longer (and cause more damage to future emotional growth) than happy memories.  (And, as @catrox14 pointed out, Sam did have nurturing and security in his early childhood--maybe more than Dean did in total.)

 

I never said it made it better.  In fact, I clearly stated that I'm not saying Sam had it worse.  I was debating the notion that Sam had things in his childhood that Dean never got to experience.  Truthfully, the same can be said about Dean.  That he had somethings in his childhood that Sam didn't.  Obviously Dean did have to go through the trauma of losing his mother and I never denied that.  However, that still doesn't take away from the fact that in Dean's early childhood, he technically had positive and nurturing experiences with his mother that Sam never got the chance to have.  

And when was it shown that Sam had nurturing and security in his early childhood?  I don't recall anything earlier than Something Wicked being discussed regarding Sam's childhood which technically before that would have been his early childhood.  Simply being kept in the dark about monsters isn't really that nurturing.  Holding a child in your arms and singing to them is.  Telling them angels are watching over you.  That's nurturing.  Now I'm sure there was some nurturing here and there... from a father lost or a 6 year old brother but I'm not sure how that can compare to a focused and loving father or mother.  Or having the feeling of security in a stable house.  To have that sense of stability in a home and not have to be dragged from motel to motel.

[trxr4kids]

Well we also saw in Dean's Heaven memory that he was aware of fighting between his parents and his father moving out for awhile. He was comforting her not the other way around, so how much nurture and stability did Dean actually have? I couldn't say.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

The happiest times either of the boys would have had.. ended when Dean was 4.  Having someone who is 4 years older than you take care of you will never be the same.... because that child themselves ... though they try their hardest doesn't have enough life experience and knowledge to know what's best.... to know how to properly raise a child.  Heck John himself was so lost he didn't even know how to take care of them.

I  acknowledged that it wasn't the same as having his actual mother.   It's not going to be same as what Mary might have provided, but he did not go without care, love, nurturing. Dean had some nurturing from John and later Bobby but he was also TRYING to provide emotional support to Sam which he wasn't really getting himself. 

No one said it was necessarily the best or proper care but that was on John, not Dean. I get the impression you want to minimize Dean's role in raising and caring for Sam or maybe are saying that it didn't help Sam. I don't know, maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[catrox14]

3 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Well we also saw in Dean's Heaven memory that he was aware of fighting between his parents and his father moving out for awhile. He was comforting her not the other way around, so how much nurture and stability did Dean actually have? I couldn't say.

Dean was nurturing his mother at 4. That tells me that Dean had the capacity to try and nurture others at an early age and I think it's reasonable to think he extended that nurturing quality to Sam. He did it for John and John said he took care of Sam. 

Quote

John: You know, when you were a kid, I'd come home from a hunt, and after what I'd seen, I'd be, I'd be wrecked. And you, you'd come up to me and you, you'd put your hand on my shoulder and you'd look me in the eye and you'd... You'd say 'It's okay, Dad.' Dean, I'm sorry.

Dean: What?
John: You shouldn't have had to say that to me, I should have been saying that to you. You know, I put, I put too much on your shoulders, I made you grow up too fast. You took care of Sammy, you took care of me. You did that, and you didn't complain, not once. I just want you to know that I am so proud of you.

Dean: This really you talking?
John: Yeah. Yeah, it's really me.
Dean: Why are you saying this stuff?
John: I want you to watch out for Sammy, okay?
Dean: Yeah, Dad, you know I will. You're scaring me.

John: Don't be scared, Dean.

[Reganne]

11 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Well we also saw in Dean's Heaven memory that he was aware of fighting between his parents and his father moving out for awhile. He was comforting her not the other way around, so how much nurture and stability did Dean actually have? I couldn't say.

We also heard Dean talk about his mother singing Hey Jude to him and saying Angels are watching over him.  As well as how she cared for him while he was sick and made him tomato rice soup.  

Speaking of Heaven memories.... what were Sam's of?  Sitting for anothers family thanksgiving dinner.  I know, I know.  Sam is the ungrateful little brat of a brother.  Yada, yada, yada.  But there is a reason one of his memories was of that.... because he never got it growing up.  He could never have his mother in his heaven as the memory of her doesn't exist.

 

9 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I  acknowledged that it wasn't the same as having his actual mother.   It's not going to be same as what Mary might have provided, but he did not go without care, love, nurturing. Dean had some nurturing from John and later Bobby but he was also TRYING to provide emotional support to Sam which he wasn't really getting himself. 

No one said it was necessarily the best or proper care but that was on John, not Dean. I get the impression you want to minimize Dean's role in raising and caring for Sam or maybe are saying that it didn't help Sam. I don't know, maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick.

I'm not trying to minimize his role.  I'm simply saying that at Dean's age, he wouldn't have the knowledge, skills or maturity level to raise a child.  That's why social services get involved if there are real cases like these.  And yes, it's on John.  Not Dean.  

Edited September 26, 2017 by Reganne

[catrox14]

Just now, Reganne said:

I'm not trying to minimize his role.  I'm simply saying that at Dean's age, he wouldn't have the knowledge, skills or maturity level to raise a child.  That's why social services get involved if there are real cases likes these.  And yes, it's on John.  Not Dean.  

Whether Dean had the skills or maturity to raise Sam or not, he was in the position and put in that role by John. And he did it. Are you suggesting that Dean couldn't have raised Sam because he was too young? Are you suggesting that didn't happen?  Someone took care of Sam and that someone was Dean. Not being snarky, just not following what you are meaning here.

5 minutes ago, Reganne said:

Speaking of Heaven memories.... what were Sam's of?  Sitting for anothers family thanksgiving dinner.  I know, I know.  Sam is the ungrateful little brat of a brother.  Yada, yada, yada.  But there is a reason one of his memories was of that.... because he never got it growing up.  He could never have his mother in his heaven as the memory of her doesn't exist.

Who said anything about Sam being an ungrateful brat? What? No one has said that here in this discussion. 

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Who said anything about Sam being an ungrateful brat? What? No one has said that here in this discussion. 

My thoughts on this statement was that Dean was viewed as seeing Sam as an ungrateful brat because his best memories were times when he was away from his family. I personally didn't see it as Dean seeing Sam as ungrateful just him being hurt and somewhat bewildered at the fact that his best memories were when the family was apart.

[Reganne]

7 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Whether Dean had the skills or maturity to raise Sam or not, he was in the position and put in that role by John. And he did it. Are you suggesting that Dean couldn't have raised Sam because he was too young? Are you suggesting that didn't happen?  Someone took care of Sam and that someone was Dean. Not being snarky, just not following what you are meaning here.

Who said anything about Sam being an ungrateful brat? What? No one has said that here in this discussion. 

I think we're going in circles.  I am saying having a brother raise you who is 4 years older than you is not the same as a loving mother and father.  The experience of a mother is something Sam never knew.  Dean has had early childhood experiences that Sam didn't.   That is all I have really been saying.  That Dean has had positive childhood experiences that Sam hasn't though I can also acknowledge that vice versa is True regardless of who had it worse.

 

TBH... as far as my last statement.  Many have criticized Sam's character for his heaven memories.  For how much he hurt Dean and how ungrateful he is for everything Dean has done for him. That part of my argument wasn't what I was referring to so I got their criticisms out of the way.  Lol

[catrox14]

Just now, Reganne said:

H... as far as my last statement.  Many have criticized Sam's character for his heaven memories.  For how much he hurt Dean and how ungrateful he is for everything Dean has done for him. That part of my argument wasn't what I was referring to so I got their criticisms out of the way.  Lol

Okay, so it wasn't anything anyone actually said in this round of discussions. Thanks for clarifying.

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I think we're going in circles.  I am saying having a brother raise you who is 4 years older than you is not the same as a loving mother and father.  The experience of a mother is something Sam never knew.  Dean has had early childhood experiences that Sam didn't.   That is all I have really been saying.  That Dean has had positive childhood experiences that Sam hasn't though I can also acknowledge that vice versa is True regardless of who had it worse.

Just curious, what do you make of Dean saying he had to be mother, father and brother to Sam in 12.22?  Do you agree with that or no?

[Reganne]

2 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Okay, so it wasn't anything anyone actually said in this round of discussions. Thanks for clarifying.

Just curious, what do you make of Dean saying he had to be mother, father and brother to Sam in 12.22?  Do you agree with that or no?

I would say it's probably true considering Sam didn't have a mother and his father left him for days at a time with Dean.

[ahrtee]

1 minute ago, Reganne said:

I think we're going in circles.  I am saying having a brother raise you who is 4 years older than you is not the same as a loving mother and father.  The experience of a mother is something Sam never knew.  Dean has had early childhood experiences that Sam didn't.   That is all I have really been saying.  That Dean has had positive childhood experiences that Sam hasn't though I can also acknowledge that vice versa is True regardless of who had it worse

OK, I think the discussion has changed since I started writing an answer to your earlier statement.  I can agree with this one:  that yes, Sam didn't have the same early childhood experiences that Dean did.  That being raised by a lost father and a traumatized 4-year-old is not the same as a warm and loving "normal" family.  But that's not what you said before:

21 minutes ago, Reganne said:

And when was it shown that Sam had nurturing and security in his early childhood?  I don't recall anything earlier than Something Wicked being discussed regarding Sam's childhood which technically before that would have been his early childhood.  Simply being kept in the dark about monsters isn't really that nurturing.  Holding a child in your arms and singing to them is.  Telling them angels are watching over you.  That's nurturing.  Now I'm sure there was some nurturing here and there... from a father lost or a 6 year old brother but I'm not sure how that can compare to a focused and loving father or mother.  Or having the feeling of security in a stable house.  To have that sense of stability in a home and not have to be dragged from motel to motel.

I was addressing the question of "nurturing," which I think was met, by a combination of Mary, Dean and probably friends and family, including Pastor Jim and Bobby.  Children can survive (and even thrive) without being told "angels are watching over them" or even being sung to regularly.  Nurturing in this case (to me) means giving unconditional love and caring, not just food and shelter.  John gave the latter.  Dean gave the former.  

And you also have to remember that Mary was around for the first six months of Sam's life.  That's the major bonding time.  A quote from the UC Davis Medical Center site:  "Babies who are held and comforted when they need it during the first six months of life tend to be more secure and confident as toddlers and older children."   And I'm pretty sure it's heavily implied (and stated outright in "John Winchester's Journal," which, while not show-canon, was officially sanctioned and should be considered) that Dean clung to Sam, crawled into his crib every night and refused to leave him alone, and gave him that kind of love (even if it was more desperate than calm) that a mother would.  So Sam didn't start off at a disadvantage, no matter what happened later.  The fact that he didn't remember it doesn't make it any less important, just like Dean didn't remember much about his first 3 years or so (and, as I said before, I'm pretty sure the later trauma wiped out much of the security and comfort he'd been given earlier--which is obvious by the mass of doubts and insecurities that he carries.)   So Sam did have the best start in life that any child could get--much better than infants in institutions (even if they did have a stable existence) or in an abusive family.  And to me, the proof is the way Sam turned out--he was strong and confident, able to stand up for himself (and for others), with no visible traumatic scars or psychological issues (which Dean *does* have in spades.)  

So whether Sam was raised in a "traditional" one-mother-one-father stable family or not, he was obviously given what he needed.  

Again, I'm not doing a "who had it worse" comparison.  In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite--prove that neither one had it better than the other, but that they were equally screwed.  

[Bessie]

2 hours ago, ahrtee said:

This isn't intended as a Sam-vs-Dean, who-had-it-harder comparison, just pointing out that yes, Sam did have at least some normal childhood, and that John and Dean either allowed or actively encouraged it.  

How are your posts not a who-had-it-harder comparison? I don't understand that because that's exactly how they're coming across to me - an argument that dean had it harder than sam. 

ETA: Which is fine. It doesn't bother me any. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Bessie

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, Bessie said:

How are your posts not a who-had-it-harder comparison? I don't understand that because that's exactly how they're coming across to me - an argument that dean had it harder than sam. 

ETA: Which is fine. It doesn't bother me any. 

Quoting myself:

17 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Again, I'm not doing a "who had it worse" comparison.  In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite--prove that neither one had it better than the other, but that they were equally screwed.  

Sorry if it doesn't seem that way.

[Bessie]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Sorry if it doesn't seem that way.

I was just curious about that statement that you weren't making comparisons about who had it harder, that's all. No apologies needed!

[DeeDee79]

7 minutes ago, Bessie said:

How are your posts not a who-had-it-harder comparison? I don't understand that because that's exactly how they're coming across to me - an argument that dean had it harder than sam. 

And there have also been posts stating that Sam had it harder than Dean because he didn’t have his mother while Dean had her for four years. IMO @ahrtee is just trying to show that they were both dealt a crappy hand but Dean tried his best to make do for Sam despite their upbringing. 

[Bessie]

3 minutes ago, DeeDee79 said:

And there have also been posts stating that Sam had it harder than Dean because he didn’t have his mother while Dean had her for four years.

Oh, I know. But I don't think they claimed they weren't making comparisons about who had it harder.  It's not a big deal. I was just curious. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Bessie

[Jeddah]

There's a lot of discussion about Mary's role in their early lives, but I think Dean's early experiences with John made a big difference too. In the pilot John is very affectionate with Dean. Dean has memories of John from before. Sam only knew John as an obsessed, broken man. I think that affected the way they viewed their family throughout their childhoods.

Dean took care of Sam, but Sam contributed to Dean's happiness too. Sure, five year old Sammy ate the last of the Lucky Charms in "Something Wicked," but he offered Dean the prize! That's a huge deal to a five year old! I know Dean felt like taking care of Sam was his "job," but I don't think he took care of Sam only because of some selfless obligation. He also liked Sam. He liked being a brother. They had each other.

They both had really crappy childhoods. There were differences in their childhoods, but even with the parentification of Dean, I think they would both say they grew up together and were raised by John.

[AwesomO4000]

3 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Sorry I wasn't clear either. I don't think any time Dean talks about saving Sam or talks about being a piece of shit is manipulation. I think that is what Dean means  in his heart. IMO, there was nothing for Dean to gain in that situation because Dean wasn't seeking Sam's forgiveness because 1) he didn't think he was wrong for saving Sam 2) because on some level I don't think Dean thought he deserved to be forgiven, which is why he left on his own. He didn't want Sam to come after him and IMO he was just trying to find a way to his own redemption or his own ruination. I really do believe that. YMMV

I understand your opinion, it's Dean's logic / thinking I don't understand. If Dean believed he was right - which he seemed to for the first part of that argument - then the second part of the argument would seem to come flying out of nowhere, because why should Dean feel like crap and think he's crap if he didn't think his decision was the wrong one? Maybe he thought it was the right decision, but felt badly about Kevin and what happened to Sam? But if that was the case, I think Dean chose a bad way to show it. Dean's leaving after his outburst wasn't helping Sam at all... it only made Sam more frustrated and angry, because Dean seemed to be more concerned / guilty about what happened with Kevin - because that's when Dean lost it, when Kevin came up - than he did about what Sam went through. I'm not saying that that's necessarily true, I'm saying that's how it came across to me.

But my main point was that Dean chose to get bogged down in his own issues and bug out rather than to address what he'd done to Sam and how that made Sam feel, and in my opinion that was kind of crappy for Sam. And then when Sam was understandably angry about that - Dean taking off - Dean still was abrasive and making things difficult for Sam which would tend to support the "ruination" part of your point above. I'm just having a hard time meshing the "I made the right decision" thing with the "I screw everything up and am crap" thing, especially considering the two things came about about 30 seconds apart. Maybe I'm just looking for logic when I'm not supposed to be. In any case, the whole thing was crappy for Sam and I can see why he was such a mess the next episode and why he was likely pretty annoyed by Dean's "let's just put this all behind us" statement.

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

But that was more or less the wrong time for Sam to bring it up because of what was going on with Dean and his reflection to childhood. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that Dean should be given leeway to talk abou things when he wants to talk about them, not only when Sam wants to talk about them. 

It wasn't like Sam was bringing it up then to annoy Dean. It was something Sam sincerely felt after his revelation after learning about what happened. I also don't think that it was necessarily the wrong time to bring it up, myself, either, though I understand if you disagree.

I also don't think Sam somehow took away Dean's decision on when to talk about it. When it first happened, Sam asked if Dean wanted to talk about it - gave Dean a choice / chance - Dean said no, Sam let it go. As for the point about letting Dean talk when he wants to... well, in that case I think Sam might have to wait until the cows come home. Sometimes when they have a shared thing - like John dying - Sam might want to talk... might even need to talk. Does that mean he shouldn't even ask, and just wait and wait and wait while Dean exhibits potentially destructive or harmful behavior until Dean is ready?  I'm of the opinion that I don't think Sam's need to talk should be considered any less important than Dean's need / desire not to talk, so I don't think Sam is all that awful for asking for what he (Sam) needs. Dean can - and obviously does - say "no." And Sam generally abides by that - sometimes it takes a little longer than others, but usually he does - even if that means he (Sam) likely isn't going to get the closure / support / discourse that he might need at the time.

I think there should be compromise - and I think the "Road Trip" example is a good one that often there isn't. Sam probably needed to talk. I think Dean should have compromised and done so, because I think Sam deserved that consideration in that case, but I understand that miles are going to vary on that and that I'm likely at a table of one on that one.

2 hours ago, gonzosgirrl said:

They both said ugly things, rooted in truth. But Sam shot Dean, first just because he knew it would 'hurt like hell' and shut him up, and then actively sought to kill him by pulling the trigger on what he believed to be a loaded gun three times. Not being anxious to hug that out immediately afterward doesn't make  Dean the bad guy in this scenario.

It sounds like you are implying that Sam was under his own faculties and actually chose to shoot Dean. We saw at the beginning of the episode that a husband shot the wife he loved just because they'd had a little argument earlier that day. Both Sam and Dean were aware that his behavior was totally out of whack with how the guy normally was, which is why Dean wasn't stupid enough to give Sam a loaded gun. That Sam shot at Dean - just like the previous victims of the psychiatrist's ghost - meant to me that Sam was human, not secretly wishing that he could kill his brother. After thinking about it, I thought that it would've been completely cheesy if Sam had somehow been able to overcome the doctor's influence when the other victims hadn't been able to do so. And I didn't blame Sam for something that not even a loving husband could stop himself from doing to his wife. Obviously your miles vary here.

And I don't think anyone was implying that Dean was the bad guy for not wanting to talk about it. I'm not anyway. My point for bringing up that Dean did maybe mention it and that Sam apologized for his wrong thinking later in "Something Wicked" was that the writers didn't drop the storyline and that it was later on addressed - at least in my opinion. That was my point.

[catrox14]

15 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I'm just having a hard time meshing the "I made the right decision" thing with the "I screw everything up and am crap" thing, especially considering the two things came about about 30 seconds apart. Maybe I'm just looking for logic when I'm not supposed to be. In any case, the whole thing was crappy for Sam and I can see why he was such a mess the next episode and why he w

Because Dean is a complicated person? Seriously. I'm not being snarky.

Dean can believe he did the right thing with saving Sam because that's his pathology and still feel like shit because he got played by Gadreel for months and that ended up with Kevin, who was innocent, dead because of Dean's decision.  He felt guilty for lying to Sam but not for the original decision to save Sam's life. 

It isn't logical because Dean isn't operating on logic in this situation. He's operating on emotions more than anything here. Sam is operating on his own hurt and resentment and with good reason. Sam is also complicated because I think he appreciates that Dean saved him but he can't admit it yet because it ended up with his hands killing Kevin even though HE didn't kill Kevin. So for me, Dean is heading for ruination by distancing himself from Sam, and by allying with Crowley after he been on a bender.. IMO that is something he  would never have done if his decision didn't end up with Kevin dead.  

[DittyDotDot]

16 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Dean can believe he did the right thing with saving Sam because that's his pathology and still feel like shit because he got played by Gadreel for months and that ended up with Kevin, who was innocent, dead because of Dean's decision.  He felt guilty for lying to Sam but not for the original decision to save Sam's life.

Or, in other words, Dean can feel he did the right thing but went about it completely wrong. 

[catrox14]

5 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Or, in other words, Dean can feel he did the right thing but went about it completely wrong. 

I guess if you see it that way, fair enough. I don't think it's as straight forward as that necessarily.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 hours ago, trxr4kids said:

 I think it gets tossed around that Dean had normal for almost five years but it's not like he remembers infancy or toddlerhood. At best he has a few fuzzy memories. 

But couldn't the same thing be said about Sam's childhood for the first 5 years?  So if it's okay to discount Dean's early childhood with both a mother and father because he's too young to remember much and at best only has fuzzy memories, then shouldn't it be okay to discount Sam's early childhood with Dean as a surrogate 'mother'* because he's too young and only has fuzzy memories?  Seems like there's a double standard at play here.

*While I do think Dean acted as father, mother, and brother many times during Sam's life, I have a hard time believing that 4-5 year old Dean was that Father and Mother.  Remember, John didn't start hunting right away.  I don't remember how long it was, but he kept his job at the garage for at least 6 months, I think?  And moved in with his boss.  Even though Dean saw his mother burn up in the house fire, I don't think that means he knew about monsters at 4 years old.  

11 hours ago, ahrtee said:

I think I addressed this in my comment above.  Yes, they're different, but there are some things that are comparable:  the need for cuddling/affection (which Dean got from Mary and gave to Sam), and the existence of traumatic events (which Dean suffered but Sam didn't.)  

As I recall, John's old boss said that John 'doted on the boys' after Mary died - so I think Dean was still getting plenty of cuddling and affection after Mary died, at least for awhile.  It didn't stop cold turkey with the fire.  

Also, I would say that moving constantly - which it seems they were doing by the time Sam was 4 or 5 (the same age as Dean who'd lived in the same house for his first 4-5 years) is a traumatic event for that age child.  

10 hours ago, ahrtee said:

OK, I think the discussion has changed since I started writing an answer to your earlier statement.  I can agree with this one:  that yes, Sam didn't have the same early childhood experiences that Dean did.  That being raised by a lost father and a traumatized 4-year-old is not the same as a warm and loving "normal" family.  But that's not what you said before:

I was addressing the question of "nurturing," which I think was met, by a combination of Mary, Dean and probably friends and family, including Pastor Jim and Bobby.  Children can survive (and even thrive) without being told "angels are watching over them" or even being sung to regularly.  Nurturing in this case (to me) means giving unconditional love and caring, not just food and shelter.  John gave the latter.  Dean gave the former.  

And you also have to remember that Mary was around for the first six months of Sam's life.  That's the major bonding time.  A quote from the UC Davis Medical Center site:  "Babies who are held and comforted when they need it during the first six months of life tend to be more secure and confident as toddlers and older children."   And I'm pretty sure it's heavily implied (and stated outright in "John Winchester's Journal," which, while not show-canon, was officially sanctioned and should be considered) that Dean clung to Sam, crawled into his crib every night and refused to leave him alone, and gave him that kind of love (even if it was more desperate than calm) that a mother would.  So Sam didn't start off at a disadvantage, no matter what happened later.  The fact that he didn't remember it doesn't make it any less important, just like Dean didn't remember much about his first 3 years or so (and, as I said before, I'm pretty sure the later trauma wiped out much of the security and comfort he'd been given earlier--which is obvious by the mass of doubts and insecurities that he carries.)   So Sam did have the best start in life that any child could get--much better than infants in institutions (even if they did have a stable existence) or in an abusive family.  And to me, the proof is the way Sam turned out--he was strong and confident, able to stand up for himself (and for others), with no visible traumatic scars or psychological issues (which Dean *does* have in spades.)  

So whether Sam was raised in a "traditional" one-mother-one-father stable family or not, he was obviously given what he needed.  

Again, I'm not doing a "who had it worse" comparison.  In fact, I'm trying to do the opposite--prove that neither one had it better than the other, but that they were equally screwed.  

The thing about babies applies to Dean also, does it not?  So, how exactly does the trauma of the fire wipe that out?  Dean still had too.    

Tbh, it doesn't sound like you're trying to show that neither one had it better, since it seems like the bulk of your comment is trying to prove how Sam had better than Dean.  Especially with comments like 'Sam doesn't have any psychological issues but Dean does'.  I think they both have issues.  Just different issues.  

10 hours ago, DeeDee79 said:

And there have also been posts stating that Sam had it harder than Dean because he didn’t have his mother while Dean had her for four years. IMO @ahrtee is just trying to show that they were both dealt a crappy hand but Dean tried his best to make do for Sam despite their upbringing. 

And there have been just as much posts stating that Dean had it harder than Sam.  

I'm not disputing that Dean did his best to try to give Sam a good childhood.  

[trxr4kids]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But couldn't the same thing be said about Sam's childhood for the first 5 years?  So if it's okay to discount Dean's early childhood with both a mother and father because he's too young to remember much and at best only has fuzzy memories, then shouldn't it be okay to discount Sam's early childhood with Dean as a surrogate 'mother'* because he's too young and only has fuzzy memories?  Seems like there's a double standard at play here.

I never said anything about Sam's childhood, I was only speaking about Dean.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

As I recall, John's old boss said that John 'doted on the boys' after Mary died - so I think Dean was still getting plenty of cuddling and affection after Mary died, at least for awhile.  It didn't stop cold turkey with the fire.

Not that it matters to the point at hand, but I think the guy was John's partner not boss. Anyway, I believe he was referring to how John was with the boys before the fire. Either Sam or Dean asked him what he remembered about John and he said something to the effect that he was a stubborn bastard, hated to lose at anything, but he loved Mary and doted on those boys. He also said after the fire John wasn't thinking straight and just got worse and worse.

So, I'd say John probably wasn't as affectionate as he had been before the fire due to preoccupation with Mary's death and his own grief, but he hadn't went full blown paranoid drunk yet.

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't remember how long it was, but he kept his job at the garage for at least 6 months, I think?  And moved in with his boss.  Even though Dean saw his mother burn up in the house fire, I don't think that means he knew about monsters at 4 years old.  

According to transcripts of John's Journal (link or it didn't happen:  http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Journal_(diary_entries)) he did indeed move in with his business partner and his wife for a little over a month--Mary was killed on November 2nd; John takes the boys and leaves on December 23, six days after he meets Missouri and three days after he and Missouri visit the house and Missouri says she sensed the echo of one of the most powerful things she's ever sensed before.

I don't know exactly when John started hunting, I'd guess it took him some time to work his way into that world and he probably was hesitant to leave Sam and Dean to go on hunts at first. I'd also guess John wasn't hunting full-time for a couple years, not until Dean was old enough to take care of Sam for long stretches of time--which he was still too young, but whatever... .

My guess would also be Dean stayed innocent of the supernatural at first. I would guess John tried to keep it from Dean--in the same way he and Dean did for Sam--for as long as he could. TBH, I'd guess that Dean was probably only a year or so younger than Sam was when he learned the truth--so, probably 6 years old or so. But I don't think he was a full-time caregiver to Sam until he was probably 8 or so. 

All this is not to discount Dean's contribution to Sam's life, but to point out that Dean wasn't necessarily denied normalcy anymore than Sam was, they just had different normal experiences, IMO. 

 

Other things of interest from those transcripts of John's journal:

• John mentions Dean didn't wouldn't talk after the fire--which we knew from Dead in the Water--but didn't stop talking when he met Missouri; which I found interesting.
• Neither Sam or Dean sleep through the night for almost a month after the fire. John would find Dean in Sam's crib every morning like he was protecting Sam--which confirmed to me Dean naturally had that "protect Sam" instinct, John just exploited it.
• John was sure he could sense a presence watching them and started sleeping with a gun under his pillow a couple weeks after the fire. He started drinking quite a bit and mentions waking up with a hangover a couple times. So, he started on his way to paranoid drunk pretty quickly.
• Apparently Mary kept journals--which isn't surprising given that most hunters seem to keep a journal--in a safe that was also destroyed in the fire. John mentions a couple times he wished he could read them...oh, I bet he'd change his mind after he saw what was actually in them. ;)

Edited September 26, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Katy M]

And, I don't know where this fits into the conversation, but they also had babysitters from time to time.  We know that John left them with Donna (from Swap Meat) a few times, and once was for 2 weeks (?).  I think they said the last time was the summer before Sam's 6th grade.  So, he would have been 10 or 11 and Dean 14 or 15. We know they had a different babysitter that Dean remembers well enough to know that she loved Dynasty.  And, they stayed with Bobby, and possibly Pastor Jim, from time to time.  So, Dean didn't have 100% responsibility for Sam all the time.

[trxr4kids]

18 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

John mentions Dean didn't wouldn't talk after the fire--which we knew from Dead in the Water--but didn't stop talking when he met Missouri; which I found interesting.

Wait does that mean he talked until after he met Missouri in Dec? Or that when he met her he hadn't talked but did with her and then stopped again? 

[companionenvy]

I think Dean was more damaged by their childhood because of the family dynamics, but I don't think his childhood was worse than Sam's. In some ways, it was better, even after the first four years.

I don't believe it is simply a reflection of their respective personalities that Sam clashed with John and Dean didn't. I think Sam was able to question John -- and hence the entire hunting world -- because he was a significantly younger brother, and therefore didn't need to to rely exclusively on John to fill the parental/quasiparental role in his life. We see this happening in A Very Supernatural Christmas: Sam, angry at John, transfers his affections to Dean. 

Dean didn't have that option. As a result, there was a kind of Stockholm Syndrome effect. It is really, really hard to reject your sole parental figure, upon whom you are totally reliant. So, fairly naturally, Dean responds to John's neglect and abuse by deciding that what John is doing is totally justified. Hunting is the best thing ever; Dad is a hero, and if Dad is angry, then I must be at fault. It's an emotional defense mechanism, and it is one Sam doesn't need in large part because of Dean. 

On a day-to-day basis, Dean may actually have been happier, because, if you can't otherwise change the situation, deluding yourself into thinking your dysfunctional childhood is A-OK is more conducive to happiness than recognizing exactly how badly you have it. The mask cracked sometimes, but often, Dean was able to take pleasure and pride (even if only superficially) in embracing the hunting life, whereas it more often than not made Sam feel like a total freak and just added to his resentment at not having the stability of normal families. Dean had more responsibility, of course, but, at least in general, I suspect he was happier.

Long term, however, Dean's situation winds up being more psychologically damaging. The other side of idolizing an abusive parent is that in order to justify the parent, the child has to blame himself, hence Dean's enduring self-worth issues. Because he never had anyone protecting him in the way he should have, Dean also (more than Sam) feels that the weight of the world rests on his shoulders. Sam also had some time both physically(the Stanford years) and emotionally (because he allowed himself to resent John) to define himself in ways other than his role as a hunter and within the family. Dean didn't get to do that. That's not to say Sam isn't scarred by childhood-- his childhood certainly contributes to the rage issues he's dealt with -- but I think it is to a different degree than Dean.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

33 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

According to transcripts of John's Journal (link or it didn't happen:  http://www.supernaturalwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Journal_(diary_entries))

Thank you @DittyDotDot for the extra information from John's journal!  And correction of boss to business partner.  :)

10 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Wait does that mean he talked until after he met Missouri in Dec? Or that when he met her he hadn't talked but did with her and then stopped again? 

I think it means that after the fire, Dean didn't talk until he met Missouri - and talked to her.  Whether or not he stopped talking after they left Missouri is not stated, but wouldn't surprise me if it was true.  

[trxr4kids]

1 minute ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think it means that after the fire, Dean didn't talk until he met Missouri - and talked to her.  Whether or not he stopped talking after they left Missouri is not stated, but wouldn't surprise me if it was true.  

Huh, I wonder if he actually talked out loud to her or she just read his mind for John. 

[DittyDotDot]

26 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

Wait does that mean he talked until after he met Missouri in Dec? Or that when he met her he hadn't talked but did with her and then stopped again? 

John mentions that Dean went silent right after the fire and nothing John did seemed to get him to open up. But, when he took the boys to meet Missouri both of them loved her on sight. Sam--who had been crying a lot in the aftermath of the fire--sat happily on Missouri's lap, while Dean talked non-stop. My takeaway was there was something about Missouri that both boys found safe and soothing. Perhaps it was her psychic-ness, I really don't know. He doesn't mention if Dean stops talking again, but knowing what we do from Dead in the Water, we know he does start talking again, so my guess is this was what broke the damn.

Here's the entry about Missouri and the boys:

Quote

December 17, 1983

I met someone… someone who I think might be a friend, to me and the boys. For the last couple of days I’ve been visiting… well, psychics, I guess would be the term. I wandered past a place, and I don’t know, I just walked in. Two months ago I would have laughed out loud if anyone told me I’d be doing this, but at this point I’m not sure where else to turn. Anyway, I went inside… it was a total scam. I watched this guy read some palms… he’d just parrot back what people were telling him, or give them broad stuff – “someone you love is worried” and they ate it up. Like I said, it was bull, but for some reason, later that afternoon I went to another… then today, I went to Missouri. And the second I walked in, I can’t explain it… it was like we’d been friends for years. She knew every detail, not just of my life, but also of me… my thoughts… fears. She was the first person who didn’t look at me like I was crazy when I told her my story… she just listened, and nodded, and then she told me she believed me.

An hour later I was back… with the boys. For some reason I wanted her to see them, to meet them… maybe to tell me they were okay. They both loved her immediately… Sammy sat in her lap the whole time, smiling, and Dean talked nonstop… he never does that anymore. I don’t know, if it were just me, maybe I wouldn’t trust her, but seeing the boys warm up to her like that… There’s something there. I think she can help me.

Edited September 26, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[trxr4kids]

2 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

John mentions that Dean went silent right after the fire and nothing John did seemed to get him to open up. But, when he took the boys to meet Missouri both of them loved her on site. Sam--who had been crying a lot in the aftermath of the fire--sat happily on Missouri's lap, while Dean talked non-stop. My takeaway was there was something about Missouri that both boys found safe and soothing. Perhaps it was her psychic-ness, I really don't know. He doesn't mention if Dean stops talking again, but knowing what we do from Dead in the Water, we know he does start talking again, so my guess is this was what broke the damn.

Here's the entry about Missouri and the boys:

That's really interesting, thanks for that. I've never taken the time to read John's journal *adds it to to do list*

[ahrtee]

2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

The thing about babies applies to Dean also, does it not?  So, how exactly does the trauma of the fire wipe that out?  Dean still had too.    

 

The same way that a traumatic event, even to an adult, can cause PTSD and can change a personality, sometimes permanently.  I'd say watching your mother burn could give a 4-year-old PTSD.  

 

2 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Tbh, it doesn't sound like you're trying to show that neither one had it better, since it seems like the bulk of your comment is trying to prove how Sam had better than Dean.  Especially with comments like 'Sam doesn't have any psychological issues but Dean does'.  I think they both have issues.  Just different issues.  

TBH, I was specifically addressing the posts that were saying how Sam never had the nurturing he needed in his early childhood and was deprived because he never knew his mother.  Because of that "the bulk of my comment" was trying to point out how Dean (and others, like Pastor Jim and Bobby) had probably helped ameliorate some of that.  It doesn't mean that Sam had it good and therefore had a wonderful childhood.  I didn't say that constantly moving around is good for *any* child.  I was addressing the specific issues about Sam's *early childhood.*   If you choose to read that as saying that I was trying to show that Sam had it better than Dean, then so be it.  My problem here is why people are trying to make this into a competition, as if there's a limited amount of angst in the world, and so if one brother has a large amount, it automatically means the other must not have any?  

 

ETA:  @companionenvy just said exactly what I was trying to say, only much clearer and more succinctly.  

[catrox14]

when I made my original  Dean centric post about why he will always save Sam, which was spawned from why Dean wouldn't apologize for the Gadreel possession,  I never said nor implied that Dean had it worse. Just that he had a role in childhood that Sam didn't as a caregiver.  If I thought Dean had it worse I would have said so directly as I am pretty straightforward in my opinions about Dean. If folks  inferred that I was saying Dean had it worse,  then I can see why there was the rush to defend Sam against something that I never implied in the first place.

 That said, all this subsequent discussion with the various points has me falling on the side that Dean did actually have it worse in childhood than Sam. YMMV

Edited September 26, 2017 by catrox14

[ahrtee]

2 minutes ago, trxr4kids said:

That's really interesting, thanks for that. I've never taken the time to read John's journal *adds it to to do list*

Hmm...maybe they revised the journal from the one I read way back (I don't actually have the book, but I copied out interesting sections).  

That journal has the first entry (as the boys read it back in season 1):  

1983

November 16

I went to Missouri, and learned the truth. 

and then later (in that same entry, I think):

She had a vision, and we found a bloody mess in a neighbor’s house along with the words WE’RE COMING FOR THE CHILDREN written in blood. I don’t remember anything between that and finding Sam and Dean safe back and Julie’s, thank God, but Julie…Julie was dead. Something just tore her apart.  Missouri found a tooth in her body…I took the boys, said good-bye to Missouri, and got the hell out of Lawrence. If I never go back, it’ll be too soon.

Not for Dean, though. The first thing he wanted to know was when we would go home. But we don’t have a home anymore, Dean. The sooner you get used to that, the better. We don’t have a home until we find what killed your mother.

Then, 

November 20

I killed a man in cold blood tonight.

No. I killed a shapeshifting monster tonight to protect all of the people who don’t know things like that exist. But it would have looked like a man to any of those people. And Dean saw it happen.

…

And then tonight, Dean walked out of the roadhouse right when I put the final bullet into the shape-shifter’s head. And he said, Why’d you kill him, Dad?

How am I supposed to answer that? Because he wasn’t a man, he was a monster who looked like a man? My boy walked out the door and saw me shoot someone in the head. Maybe I’m the monster who looks like a man.

That seems awfully fast for John to go full-on hunter (and for Dean to be talking so calmly), so I'm guessing they rewrote the journal later to make it fit canon better.  

[trxr4kids]

2 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

That seems awfully fast for John to go full-on hunter (and for Dean to be talking so calmly), so I'm guessing they rewrote the journal later to make it fit canon better.  

Geez, that's grim.

[Katy M]

1 hour ago, ahrtee said:

And then tonight, Dean walked out of the roadhouse right when I put the final bullet into the shape-shifter’s head. And he said, Why’d you kill him, Dad?

How am I supposed to answer that? Because he wasn’t a man, he was a monster who looked like a man? My boy walked out the door and saw me shoot someone in the head. Maybe I’m the monster who looks like a man.

That seems awfully fast for John to go full-on hunter (and for Dean to be talking so calmly), so I'm guessing they rewrote the journal later to make it fit canon better.  

This doesn't seem to fit canon at all.  You kill a shapeshifter with silver to the heart, so presumably a bullet in the head wouldn't do anything.  And, is that supposed to be THE roadhouse, or just a generic roadhouse?  Because if it's the roadhouse, I suppose Dean could have just forgotten it, but he didn't know about its existence.  And, John was a really really bad father, but are we really supposed to believe, since we do know that he had babysitters he used, that he took a 5 year old out on a hunt with him, and just told him to wait inside while he ran outside and killed something real quick?  He was a bad father, but he wasn't that bad of a father.

[Reganne]

15 hours ago, ahrtee said:

OK, I think the discussion has changed since I started writing an answer to your earlier statement.  I can agree with this one:  that yes, Sam didn't have the same early childhood experiences that Dean did.  That being raised by a lost father and a traumatized 4-year-old is not the same as a warm and loving "normal" family.  But that's not what you said before:

I was addressing the question of "nurturing," which I think was met, by a combination of Mary, Dean and probably friends and family, including Pastor Jim and Bobby.  

I was simply responding to a post saying someone had mentioned Sam getting nurturing in his early childhood.  The only thing I had really seen in a post was about being kept in the dark about hunting. ... so I was questioning it.  That is all.  Even in my post you quoted I brought up that there would have been nurturing in his development here and there.... just that it wouldn't be the same as from a loving mother or loving father in a stable setting. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Reganne

[ahrtee]

Just now, Katy M said:

This doesn't seem to fit canon at all.  You kill a shapeshifter with silver to the heart, so presumably a bullet in the head wouldn't do anything.  And, is that supposed to be THE roadhouse, or just a generic roadhouse?  Because if it's the roadhouse, I suppose Dean could have just forgotten it, but he didn't know about its existence.  And, John was a really really bad father, but are we really supposed to believe, since we do know that he had babysitters he used, that he took a 5 year old out on a hunt with him, and just told him to wait inside while he ran outside and killed something real quick?  He was a bad father, but he wasn't that bad of a father.

Yup.  I read the book maybe in 2009 (which was when I started watching SPN) so I'm pretty sure they were making it up as they went along.   If it's now online (and judging by the quotes above) they must have given it a pretty thorough rewrite to make it at least canon-compliant.

Oh, I just looked it up:  the book is still available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Supernatural-Winchesters-Journal-Alex-Irvine/dp/0062073192 

You can read the first few pages, which include the quotes I put in, and some others that I had skipped.  In fact, the quote DDD included above about Missouri did show up, but on Nov. 17, not in December, and he said he went to see Missouri a second time...and that's when she knew all about him (as quoted above,) so they obviously did rewrite for the online version.  

[CluelessDrifter]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Quote

December 17, 1983

I met someone… someone who I think might be a friend, to me and the boys. For the last couple of days I’ve been visiting… well, psychics, I guess would be the term. I wandered past a place, and I don’t know, I just walked in. Two months ago I would have laughed out loud if anyone told me I’d be doing this, but at this point I’m not sure where else to turn. Anyway, I went inside… it was a total scam. I watched this guy read some palms… he’d just parrot back what people were telling him, or give them broad stuff – “someone you love is worried” and they ate it up. Like I said, it was bull, but for some reason, later that afternoon I went to another… then today, I went to Missouri. And the second I walked in, I can’t explain it… it was like we’d been friends for years. She knew every detail, not just of my life, but also of me… my thoughts… fears. She was the first person who didn’t look at me like I was crazy when I told her my story… she just listened, and nodded, and then she told me she believed me.

An hour later I was back… with the boys. For some reason I wanted her to see them, to meet them… maybe to tell me they were okay. They both loved her immediately… Sammy sat in her lap the whole time, smiling, and Dean talked nonstop… he never does that anymore. I don’t know, if it were just me, maybe I wouldn’t trust her, but seeing the boys warm up to her like that… There’s something there. I think she can help me.

Except that this contradicts what's in the show and why I don't think it should be considered canon even if it is "sanctioned".  In Home we know what on the first sentence of the first page, John's journal said, "I went to Missouri and I learned the truth."  None of that other stuff.

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

But couldn't the same thing be said about Sam's childhood for the first 5 years?  So if it's okay to discount Dean's early childhood with both a mother and father because he's too young to remember much and at best only has fuzzy memories, then shouldn't it be okay to discount Sam's early childhood with Dean as a surrogate 'mother'* because he's too young and only has fuzzy memories?  Seems like there's a double standard at play here.

To be honest, I know that Dean having 'fuzzy memories' was introduced into the discussion, but I'd go the other way with it.  I think Dean was old enough to remember, which to me has always meant that he was old enough to remember having, not only a mother, but a 'doting' father, a home, and safety, snatched away from him.  Which is worse?  Having something like that and then having it literally burn down around you, or never having it?  I don't know.  I guess one would make you a realist and the other would make you more whimsical and always looking for that dream 'ideal' life.  I guess the only time Sam could really relate about having his 'ideal life' destroyed was when he was in college and an adult.  I think that's why he could be so flippant about his Mom being dead in the Pilot, but then by the time Salvation rolls around, he understands it. 

[ahrtee]

6 minutes ago, Reganne said:

I was simply responding to a post saying someone had mentioned Sam getting nurturing in his early childhood.  The only thing I had really seen in a post was about being kept in the dark about hunting. ... so I was questioning it.  That is all.  Even in my post you quoted I brought up that there would have been nurturing in his development here and there.... just that it wouldn't be the same as from a loving mother or loving father in a stable setting. 

No problem.  I think we were all getting sidetracked by too many ideas lumped together.  

[Bessie]

I don't have a strong opinion on who had it worse. It was a bad situation for kids all the way around. 

They were just damn lucky they had each other. Can you imagine being John's only child? 

[Reganne]

34 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

No problem.  I think we were all getting sidetracked by too many ideas lumped together.  

Yeah I think that might have been what happened.  Lol  Just wanted to clarify what I meant.  I never meant to say Sam had absolutely no nurturing in his childhood.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Reganne

[DittyDotDot]

To be clear--which it doesn't appear I was when I cited my source, sorry--the diary entries I referenced were originally posted to the official website back in the day. It doesn't exist anymore, but someone transcribed them from screen shots. I don't believe all of that was shown on screen, but was produced by the show as additional information back then. They also had Jo's journal on the site too, but we didn't see that on screen.

53 minutes ago, ahrtee said:

Yup.  I read the book maybe in 2009 (which was when I started watching SPN) so I'm pretty sure they were making it up as they went along.   If it's now online (and judging by the quotes above) they must have given it a pretty thorough rewrite to make it at least canon-compliant.

Oh, I just looked it up:  the book is still available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Supernatural-Winchesters-Journal-Alex-Irvine/dp/0062073192 

You can read the first few pages, which include the quotes I put in, and some others that I had skipped.  In fact, the quote DDD included above about Missouri did show up, but on Nov. 17, not in December, and he said he went to see Missouri a second time...and that's when she knew all about him (as quoted above,) so they obviously did rewrite for the online version.  

This isn't John's official journal, though, I thought it was more like fan-fiction. I haven't actually read the book just some reviews of it, but If I remember right, it's hard to tell what is filled in by the author and what is from the actual journal.

Anyway, are you sure both of those dates you referenced are from November 1983? It doesn't seem jive with the show at all. If it was a year or two apart that makes more sense, but but this was less than a month after Mary died, Dean was 4 years old and John barely had any knowledge of the supernatural.

Edited September 26, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[RulerofallIsurvey]

43 minutes ago, CluelessDrifter said:

To be honest, I know that Dean having 'fuzzy memories' was introduced into the discussion, but I'd go the other way with it.  I think Dean was old enough to remember, which to me has always meant that he was old enough to remember having, not only a mother, but a 'doting' father, a home, and safety, snatched away from him.  Which is worse?  Having something like that and then having it literally burn down around you, or never having it?  I don't know.  I guess one would make you a realist and the other would make you more whimsical and always looking for that dream 'ideal' life.  I guess the only time Sam could really relate about having his 'ideal life' destroyed was when he was in college and an adult.  I think that's why he could be so flippant about his Mom being dead in the Pilot, but then by the time Salvation rolls around, he understands it. 

I think this depends on the time period - or the age.  For a young child, I think remembering mom, dad, and home and safety and then having it snatched away would be worse than never having it.  You don't miss what you never had, right?  But as for an adults?  I don't know, but I think maybe it's worse not having those childhood memories of mom, dad, home, and security versus being able to to put your life in perspective and look back on their childhood memories with fondness.

[ahrtee]

14 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

This isn't John's official journal, though, I thought it was more like fan-fiction. I haven't actually read the book just some reviews of it, but If I remember right, it's hard to tell what is filled in by the author and what is from the actual journal.

Anyway, are you sure both of those dates you referenced are from November 1983? It doesn't seem jive with the show at all. If it was a year or two apart that makes more sense, but but this was less than a month after Mary died, Dean was 4 years old and John barely had any knowledge of the supernatural.

I think it's as much "official" as any of the officially-sanctioned SPN novels (which is to say, doesn't have much to do with canon, but WB OK'd it  and they're listed as copyright/TM owners.)  If you click on the Amazon link I gave above, you can see the first few pages (and the copyright info).  And yes, it does say "1983" in big letters at the top of the first page, and the first two entries are Nov. 16 and Nov. 19, and IA that it was too soon for John to be full-on hunter (and Dean to talk, and them to be at the roadhouse, or any of the other things they discussed.)  IMO, the only thing that's accurate was the first line, which was "I went to Missouri, and learned the truth."  

You can buy it on Kindle for $1.99, or a used paperback copy for $2.84 (plus shipping.)

ETA: It was originally published in 2009 by an imprint of Harper-Collins, not self-published like ff, so that does show it was at least OK'd by WB.  The same author also wrote "The SPN Book of Monsters, Spirits, Demons and Ghouls."  

Edited September 26, 2017 by ahrtee

[catrox14]

Despite never having his mother, or any memories of her, Sam still ended up well adjusted enough to get through school with excellent grades, good enough to get a full ride to Stanford.  Did he decide before high school that he wanted to go to college so he pressed hard on his academics? How did he hunt whilst doing all his homework and cramming for the SAT and taking a college entrance exam. When did he find time to do all of that? That's one thing that I think Kripke really over shot with Sam. LOL.